About critics taking a piss about the model city: > The second problem is that so often the criticisms are purely aesthetic and have little underlying understa

About critics taking a piss about the model city: > The second problem is that so often the criticisms are purely aesthetic and have little underlying understanding of what’s going on beneath the surface. To contrast to Charles’ views on why existing cities are bad: > Birmingham’s post-industrial building boom had left the city a “monstrous concrete maze”, Charles once declared, while the city’s new Brutalist library - since demolished - looked “like a place where books are incinerated, not kept”. Both sides seem pretty similarly superficial and vacuous to me.